Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrei Lepikhov
Subject Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization
Date
Msg-id 3a34029e-a485-4861-ae90-54dbe730debc@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 28/12/2023 18:29, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:22 AM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> But arrangement with an ORDER BY clause doesn't work:
>>
>> DROP INDEX abc;
>> explain SELECT x,w,z FROM t GROUP BY (w,x,z) ORDER BY (x,z,w);
>>
>> I think the reason is that the sort_pathkeys and group_pathkeys are
>> physically different structures, and we can't just compare pointers here.
> 
> I haven't yet looked into the code.  But this looks strange to me.
> Somehow, optimizer currently matches index pathkeys to ORDER BY
> pathkeys.  If GROUP BY pathkeys could be matched to index pathkeys,
> then it should be possible to match them to ORDER BY pathkeys too.
Oh, I found the mistake: I got used to using GROUP BY and ORDER BY on 
many columns with round brackets. In the case of the grouping list, it 
doesn't change anything. But ordering treats it as a WholeRowVar and 
breaks group-by arrangement. Look:
explain (COSTS OFF) SELECT relname,reltuples FROM pg_class
GROUP BY relname,reltuples ORDER BY reltuples,relname;

  Group
    Group Key: reltuples, relname
    ->  Sort
          Sort Key: reltuples, relname
          ->  Seq Scan on pg_class
But:
explain (COSTS OFF) SELECT relname,reltuples FROM pg_class
GROUP BY relname,reltuples ORDER BY (reltuples,relname);

  Sort
    Sort Key: (ROW(reltuples, relname))
    ->  Group
          Group Key: relname, reltuples
          ->  Sort
                Sort Key: relname, reltuples
                ->  Seq Scan on pg_class

So, let's continue to work.

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Built-in CTYPE provider
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?